CONSPIRACY
Their concerted efforts were performed with closeness and coordination indicating their common purpose to inflict injury on the victim. For conspiracy to exist, the evidence need not establish the actual agreement which shows the preconceived plan, motive, interest or purpose in the commission of the crime. Proof of publicly observable mutual agreement is not indispensable to establish conspiracy. Hence, there is conspiracy where two of the accused held the victim’s hands and the third stabbed the victim from behind. Conspiracy may be implied from the concerted action of the assailants in confronting the victim. In the instant case, the prosecution satisfactorily established that Jemuel twisted and pinned Jessie’s hands at the back, after which Charlie delivered the fatal blow.Since there was conspiracy between the malefactors, the actual role played by each of them does not have to be differentiated or segregated from the acts performed by the other accused. As a conspirator, each would still be equally responsible for the acts of the other conspirators.
MULTIPLE LEVELS OF CONSPIRACIES EXPLAINED
Petitioner’s first argument denigrates as grave abuse of discretion the public respondent’s rejection of the theory of overlapping conspiracies, which, in the abstract, depicts a picture of a conspirator in the first level of conspiracy performing acts which implement, or in furtherance of, another conspiracy in the next level of which the actor is not an active party. As the petitioner’s logic goes following this theory, respondent Jinggoy is not only liable for conspiring with former President Estrada in the acquisition of ill-gotten wealth from “jueteng” under par. (a) of the amended information. He has also a culpable connection with the conspiracy, under par. (b), in the diversion of the tobacco excise tax and in receiving commissions and kickbacks from the purchase by the SSS and GSIS of Belle Corporation shares and other illegal sources under par. (c) and (d), albeit, he is not so named in the last three paragraphs. And since the central figure in the overlapping conspiracies, i.e., President Estrada, is charged with a capital offense, all those within the conspiracy loop would be considered charged with the same kind of non-bailable offense.
Explaining its point, petitioner cites People v. Castelo which, as here, also involves multiple levels of conspiracies. Just like in the present case where the lead accused is a former President no less, the prime suspect in Castelo was also a powerful high-ranking government official – a former Judge who later rose to hold, in a concurrent capacity, the positions of Secretary of Justice and Secretary of National Defense, to be precise. In Castelo, charges and countercharges were initially hurled by and between Castelo and Senator Claro Recto, who was then planning to present Manuel Monroy as star witness against Castelo in a scandal case. Castelo left the Philippines for Korea. While away, someone shot Monroy dead. Evidence pointed to a conspiracy led by a certain “Ben Ulo” (who appears to be the mastermind) and a group of confidential agents of the Department of National Defense, one of whom was the triggerman. Coincidentally, Ben Ulo was a close bodyguard of Castelo. In the end, the Solicitor General tagged Ben Ulo (not Castelo) as the central figure in the conspiracy. This notwithstanding, the Court held Castelo guilty beyond reasonable doubt for murder, because only he had a motive for desiring Monroy’s demise. The conspiracy between Castelo and Ben Ulo was then determined to be overlapping with the conspiracy between Ben Ulo and the confidential agents, one of whom was the triggerman.
Further explaining the theory of overlapping conspiracies, petitioner cites the ruling in People v. Ty Sui Wong, featuring a love triangle involving a certain Victor and Mariano, each out to win the heart of Ruby. Victor left Manila for Mindanao. While Victor was away, the dead body of Mariano was found with multiple stab wounds in a dark alley in Pasay. Evidence pointed to a conspiracy among “Sampaloc hoodlums” who had no direct link with Victor. However, one of the neighbors of the “Sampaloc hoodlums” was a classmate of Victor. In the end, on the basis of interlocking confessions, the Court found Victor and his classmate together with all the “Sampaloc hoodlums” guilty of murder. (People vs. Sandiganbayan, et. al. G.R. No. 158754, August 10, 2007)
CONSPIRACY; DIRECT PROOF OF CONSPIRACY NOT REQUIRED
Indeed, the burden of proving the allegation of conspiracy falls to the shoulders of the prosecution. Considering, however, the difficulty in establishing the existence of conspiracy, settled jurisprudence finds no need to prove it by direct evidence. In People v. Pagalasan, the Court explicated why direct proof of prior agreement is not necessary.
After all, secrecy and concealment are essential features of a successful conspiracy. Conspiracies are clandestine in nature. It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a common purpose and design. Conspiracy may be implied if it is proved that two or more persons aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent of each other, were in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. There must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES; STRUCTURE THEREOF
In Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, we categorized two (2) structures of multiple conspiracies, namely: (1) the so-called “wheel” or “circle” conspiracy, in which there is a single person or group (the “hub”) dealing individually with two or more other persons or groups (the “spokes”); and (2) the “chain” conspiracy, usually involving the distribution of narcotics or other contraband, in which there is successive communication and cooperation in much the same way as with legitimate business operations between manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer and consumer.
We find that the conspiracy in the instant cases resembles the “wheel” conspiracy. The 36 disparate persons who constituted the massive conspiracy to defraud the government were controlled by a single hub, namely: Rolando Mangubat (Chief Accountant), Delia Preagido (Accountant III), Jose Sayson (Budget Examiner), and Edgardo Cruz (Clerk II), who controlled the separate “spokes” of the conspiracy. Petitioners were among the many spokes of the wheel. (Fernan, Jr., et.al. vs. People, G.R. No. 145927, August 24, 2007)
